CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Neu Living
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, July 2024
Overall rating Inadequate and in special measures; inspectors found unsafe medicines, serious premises risks and major weaknesses in management.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 9, 11 and 13 January 2024. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, staff, managers and a visiting professional. They observed care, checked the building and reviewed care records, staff files, medicines information and management records.
Inspectors found serious problems with medicines, fire safety and the condition of the building. Some risks had been identified but not dealt with. People did not always have the right capacity assessments or best-interest decisions. Staff training and competency checks were also not up to date.
Care was sometimes kind, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. However, care plans were not personal enough, activities were limited, and people were not consistently involved in decisions about their care. The home was rated Inadequate overall, with Safe, Effective and Well-led also rated Inadequate. Caring and Responsive were rated Requires Improvement.
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. The home used familiar bank staff to cover sickness or absence.
“The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of staff.” from the report
Infection control
Staff followed infection prevention procedures and had access to personal protective equipment. People and relatives did not raise concerns about cleanliness or hygiene.
“People were protected from the risk of infection as staff were following safe infection prevention and control practices.” from the report
Positive interactions
Inspectors observed consistent positive interactions between staff and people. Staff were seen speaking respectfully and using good humour.
“We carried out a SOFI that highlighted consistent positive interactions between staff and residents.” from the report
Health referrals
Staff made referrals to health professionals when people's needs changed, including to GPs and community mental health teams.
“The provider ensured the service worked effectively within and across organisations to deliver effective care, support and treatment.” from the report
Unsafe medicines
seriousSome medicines were out of stock, given in ways that did not follow instructions, or not recorded properly. One person missed a prescribed nutritional supplement for a week and another missed eardrops for several days.
“People were not supported to receive their medicines in a safe way.” from the report
Fire and building risks
seriousInspectors found unresolved building defects, including water coming through electrics, damaged fire doors and emergency lighting needing work. Evacuation plans did not contain enough detail or reflect fire service advice.
“There were environmental safety concerns in the building which placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Consent and legal safeguards
seriousCapacity assessments and best-interest decisions were missing or lacked detail. DoLS records were not always accurate, and applications were delayed.
“The provider did not work in line with the Mental Capacity Act.” from the report
Staff skills and training
seriousThere were major gaps in mandatory training and no reliable evidence of current competencies for tracheostomy, PEG, catheter care and some other tasks. Many staff had not received the supervision required by the home's policy.
“There were significant gaps in training compliance across the staff team.” from the report
Personalised care
seriousCare plans lacked detail about people's preferences, goals and support needs. One person was not always given the one-to-one support set out in their care plan.
“We found that care plans lacked detail and were not person-centred.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousAudits and monitoring did not reliably identify risks or lead to improvement. Managers lacked oversight of training, safeguarding, accidents and incidents, and the home had not fully acted on earlier feedback.
“Systems for identifying, capturing, and managing organisational risks were ineffective.” from the report
- 01What has been done to ensure all medicines are in stock, given according to instructions and recorded correctly?
- 02What repairs have been completed for the leaking ceiling, damaged fire doors and emergency lighting, and how are people now kept safe in a fire?
- 03Have every person's capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and DoLS records been reviewed and corrected?
- 04Which staff are currently trained and assessed as competent to support tracheostomy, PEG, catheter care and medicines?
- 05How will people and their families be involved in care plans, communication support and meaningful activities?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at all five key questions, the care provided and the premises; the previous overall rating was Good, published on 10 July 2021. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 July 2024 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Neu Living
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Inadequate.
- July 2024Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2021GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 July 2022.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Sheffield
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.